User talk:GoodDamon/Archives/2009/July

Edit survey
Hi GoodDamon. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I need a new keybard t
I've ttally wrn ut the key between I and P. Sceptre (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool moniker
Hiya GoodDamon, you've a cool moniker (looks familiar). GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! You too. -- Good Damon 19:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice
Hello Goodamon, as you may remember I would like to see more scholarly references added to the rest of the references in the wiki-article on SC. As you suggested I left my request (see below) on the talk page about the subject but dont get any answers. If it is the wrong page after sll to get an answer relevant to my purpose, I would like to know what to do next. As to my purpose, I want to make clear that i am not interested in discussions about anything regarding the subject (I dont regard them useful at all). I am interested in addng more secondery sources in the form of scientigic analyses by actual experts in the Humanities (I find such academic input useful). My role ceases when such expertises are available to those able to peruse them.

This was my request on the talk page:

SCIENOTLOGY, secondary sources I would like to (again) present some good scholarly sources on Scientology with the suggestion of adding them to the rest of the secondary sources in the Wiki-article on the subject: 1) Scientology, Social Science and the Definition of Religion, by James A. Beckford. Ph.D, Prof Sociology 2) Scientology, Comparison with Religions of the East and West, by Per-Arne Berglie, Prof History and Religion 3) Is Scientology a Religion?, by Allan W Black, Associate Prof of Sociology 4) Scientology, a New Religion, by M Darrol Bryant Ph.D, Prof Religion and Culture 5) Scientology, by Régis Dericquebourg, Prof of Sociology and Religion 6) Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences, by Frank K Flinn Ph.D, Associate Prof of Sociology 7) Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences, by Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D, Associate Prof of Sociology 8) Scientology a True Religion, by Urbano Alonso Galan, Doctor of Phylosophy and Licenciate in Theology, Gregorian University and Saint Bonaventure Pontifical Faculty Rome 9) Scientology, its True Nature, by Harri Heino, Prof of Theology 10) Is Scientology a Religion?, by Dean M Kelley, Counsellor on Religious Liberty 11) The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements, by Lonnie D Kliever, Dr.Phil, Prof of Religious Studies 12) Religious Philosophy, Religion and Church, by G C Oosthuizen, Th.D, Prof (retired) Dept of Science and Religion 13) The Religious Nature of Scientology, by Geoffrey Parrinder, Ph.D, Prof Emeritus 14) The Church of Scientology, by J Pentikainen, Ph.D 15) Scientology, its Historical and Morphological Frame, by Dario Sabbattuci, Prof of History and Religion 16) The Relationship between Scientology and other Religions, by Fumio Sawada, Eighth Holder of the Secrets of Yu-itsu Shinto 17) Scientology and Religion, by Christiaan Vonck, Ph.D, Rector Faculty for Comparative Study of Religions 18) Apostates and New Religious Movements and Social Change and New Religious Movements, by Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D 19) Scientology, An Analysis and Comparison of its Religious Systems and Doctrines, by Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D. Awaiting reply, Taodeptus (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Taopeptus

¨¨¨¨Taodeptus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taodeptus (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You did get answers, but either they weren't the answers you were looking for, or you didn't see them. I'm afraid that after you posted on the talk page there, one of the other editors carefully reviewed your proposed sources and found they were either written by and for the Church of Scientology, self-published online, or written by authors whose academic credentials are missing or suspect. Quantity in this regard is far less important than quality; Wikipedia should use the highest quality academic and news sources. Oh, and please stop copying and pasting this list verbatim without context or formatting, as it's very difficult to read. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, you should learn some of the syntax it uses for formatting text, so your list is more legible. For instance, you could use hash signs to create a numbered list as follows:


 * 1) First item
 * 2) Second item
 * 3) Third item
 * Using formatting makes for much easier reading. Finally, use tildes at the end of your comments to sign them. It should look like this when you're typing it: ~ . Wikipedia automatically converts four tildes into your full signature. -- Good Damon 19:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks you for the advice on syntax, which is also an important part of writing, for example because one should make it as easy as possible for a reader to identify the information, sothat he can understand it as well and quickly as possible. I wasnt totally neglectful of organisation though, as I compiled the list myself and before leaving it on the talk page I tried to improve it per the rules for references with a thesis, like alfabetical order.


 * As to my request for advice, I still dont know how or where to view any answers on my request to add academic references. Where are these answers or their "wiki-backup copies"?
 * From your answer I would also like to know how to get (to) the details on the non-academic nature of all the works proposed as none of them should qualify as academic.
 * Then I would like to know the details or their location on the net with regards to suspect or lacking credentials of all the authors.
 * Pleaee also inform me on how the fact that all other (non-church) works published in the wiki article concord with the requisite you mention of being of highest quality academic and news sources.
 * Then I would like to ask what the problem is when (any) articles are self-published, as they still are secondary sources.
 * Then I dont see how it is that articles by people outside an organisation, but published by the organisation, cannot be used. The AMA and APA for example has articles by their memebers published in their Wiki section.
 * Thanx for your help!


 * Regards,
 * Taodeptus (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (As to the signing I have pasted your tildes now, as I did write them last time.)


 * Taodeptus, I'm having trouble maintaining this conversation. First, you really need to stop posting new sections every time you reply, which makes tracking the conversation a lot harder. This is unnecessary, since conversations in a single section can easily be threaded through the use of indentation. Use : at the beginning of a line to indent. Please look at how I altered your comment in the editor; you'll see I added two colons at the beginning of every line. You'll also see that my current text has three colons.
 * Second, please don't duplicate my previous text verbatim in your answers. I know what I wrote, and if I need to go back and look at it, I can do so in the archive or even here on the page if it hasn't archived yet.
 * Third, that brings up another point: You need to be a lot quicker in your responses. The first time you posted to my talk page was here, on July 28th 2008. That was a year ago. If you're interested in editing on Wikipedia, edit. If not, please don't try to hold conversations here about sources, when you're going to take months to reply to every comment.
 * Finally, in answer to your questions, here is where another editor looked through your sources. No, self-published sources do not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia under most circumstances. See WP:RS for guidelines on what does and does not qualify as a reliable source. -- Good Damon 17:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hot outside, so stay inside working on the Oregon COTW!
Hello to WikiProject Oregon folks, and get ready for another Collaboration Of The Week. Thank you to those who worked on the land fraud scandal and Mr. Wicks. This week we have one by request, Central Oregon, and a gnomish task, the Great Infobox Drive of '09. For the infobox drive, just find some articles without infoboxes and add one. People and companies are two prime areas as many do not have infoboxes, yet infoboxes exist for those areas. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sex offenders page
Why do you keep removing my post? The information is from a textbook which is required for my college course. Please let me know what I am doing wrong so I can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interactive Measurement Group (talk • contribs) 23:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a large new section sourced to one citation, and it isn't written in encyclopedic prose. I suggest taking a look at some featured articles for examples of quality encyclopedic prose. And other citations would definitely help. Also, use ~ at the ends of your talk page posts to sign them. -- Good Damon 23:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

your revert and vandal claim on Kelly Clarkson
You're revert and claim of vandaliosm was false and was reverted. That user, even though blocked for vandalizing other pages, removed false information with no source from another vandal. An easy mistake to make considering the user is blocked and was just an IP, but still, he did nothing wrong on this particular article. Alankc (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooops, too quick on the draw there. I looked at his other edits, saw the vandalism, and just assumed. Sorry about that. -- Good Damon 01:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * i've done the same thing myself.. silly vandals cheers Alankc (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:208.123.162.2
The user was not entering an edit summery of "Possible scibaby sock,", that was an action of a misbehaving edit filter tag (it has since been deactivated for the page - see WP:VP/T). You can differentiate the two as the edit filter summary comes after the undo button unlike a normal edit summary that comes before it. The IP user appears to have just been doing a copy edit on the article, using only the default section head text as an edit summary. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I see that now. -- Good Damon 17:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)